19-Mar-2018 Dear Dr. Valdes # BMJ.2017.040712.R1 entitled "The role of the gut microbiome in nutrition and health" Thank you for sending us this commissioned paper and for your patience while we have been reviewing it. We sent it out for external peer review and discussed it at the food series manuscript committee meeting (present: Nita Forouhi, Fiona Godlee, Dariush Mozaffarian, Paul Simpson). We would be grateful if you could respond the comments made by editors and reviewers. The reviewers' comments are at the end of this letter. The editors' comments are listed below: 1) Many thanks for your hard work on the paper. Editors felt that it gave a very good overview of what we know and what we don t know about the gut microbiome and health. The comments here are intended to make the evidence base and level of current understanding clearer for a general medical readership, as well as strengthening the background, definitions, and take-home messages for readers. 2) We wondered if a discussion of the quality of evidence should be included early on the article. Animal studies are frequently cited, as are studies of surrogate markers, and we thought it would be helpful to give general readers some steer about how certain we can be about current understanding. We felt that a subsection on this within the main text towards the beginning would help orientate readers as they go on to read about the evidence, but you may wish to include a box on this instead. 3) We noted that there were several instances where qualitative descriptors were used to describe outcomes of studies (for example, "Protective, positive, useful, change the function of", "act directly on the host"). We think it would be helpful to be clearer when reporting the outcomes of studies. For example here: "IPA is a microbiota-produced product highly correlated with dietary fibre intake... that exerts neuroprotective effects against Alzheimers 23..." BMJ Readers are likely to take away a different understanding of neuroprotective effects against Alzheimers compared to what is described in ref 23 which was an in vitro assay using primary rat cells and a neuroblastoma cell line. 4) On related note, microbiome composition and bacteria population counts are common outcomes in the studies cited, and it would be useful to provide more comment on what this tells us about health. Is there evidence to support the associations between greater microbiome diversity/populations on clinical outcomes that can be cited? Are there any limitations that might help a general reader interpret microbiome composition as a surrogate marker for health? 5) The table on what we know and don t know is very helpful, but it was sometimes hard to find supporting evidence for what we know within the text or any comment on the strength/quality of evidence - can this be made clearer or added where relevant (either within the text or the table could be referenced)? 6) One of the key aims is for readers to be able to take away practical information to inform practice and policy. To this end, we wondered if a table outlining key food/nutrients and the evidence for benefits would be helpful (Fibre, Cheese, FODMAPs for example) 7) We agreed with one of the reviewers about fibre perhaps being a key message. You say in their conclusion: Fibre is a key nutrient for a healthy microbiome, and has been side-lined in recent debates on sugar and fat. There has been a lack of investment in clinical trials of natural or synthetic
fibres, despite the fact that the low-fibre western diet has been linked to the depletion of the industrialized microbiome - this does seem important and could be more prominent? 8) You mention directions for future research and current uncertainties throughout the text, but perhaps this could be more clearly wrapped up at the end to give a stronger conclusion and way forward. Given any current gaps in evidence and practice, how we can achieve more definitive answers in the future? 9) We wondered if some additional background might be helpful for the general reader. What influences the make up of the microbiome - what proportion is genetic and how much to do with the food we eat? What are some of the key components of the gut microbiome? A box with a glossary might also be helpful for terms such as microbiome, microbiota, colonocytes, plus any others that might not be well-known to general readers. We hope that you will be willing to revise your manuscript and submit it within 4 weeks (i.e. by Monday 16 April 2018). When submitting your revised manuscript please provide a point by point response to our comments and those of any reviewers. We also ask that you keep the revised manuscript within the word count of 3000 words. Once you have revised your manuscript, go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj and login to your Author Center. Click on "Manuscripts with Decisions," and then click on "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number. Then, follow the steps for resubmitting your manuscript. *** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. *** https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj?url_mask=8b333a2c36ef4c809564d1857d71f2e2 IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission. You may also click the below link to start the resbumission process (or continue the process if you have already started your revision) for your manuscript. If you use the below link you will not be required to login to ScholarOne Manuscripts. I hope you will find the comments useful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this further. Yours sincerely Navjoyt Ladher nladher@bmj.com **IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO INCLUDE IN A RESUBMISSION** Instead of returning a signed licence or competing interest form, we require all authors to insert the following statements into the text version of their manuscript: Licence for Publication
The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence (http://group.bmj.com/products/journals/instructions-for-authors/licence-forms). Competing Interest Please see our policy and the unified Competing Interests form http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/editorial-policies/competing-interests. Please state any competing interests if they exist, or make a no competing interests declaration. Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: Comments: Dear authors, Dear Dr. Ladher, Thanks for contacting me. I read with interest this review. It is a well-written, well-balanced, up-to-date yet concise review on the topic. The authors used human studies and perform research for systematic reviews in the field. Table 2 is very informative and limitations of these systematic reviews are well discussed in the text. I have a few minor suggestions and comments. - On several occasions, I would replace the term microbiome by microbiota, including in the title and in key message 1. As the authors explained it at the beginning of the text, the microbiome encompass the microbial genes, whereas the microbiota refers to the community, which for me is essential. What matters is more to change in a beneficial way the functionality of the microbiota, the panel of metabolites produced than the composition of the genes. Although the second often leads to the first, it is not a preliminary. - One of the key messages and conclusions of the manuscript is that the medical community needs to adapt their education and public health messages accordingly. What would be the public health message that could be conveyed right now, based on our current knowledge of the gut microbiota? I completely agree with the authors that currently, we don t have enough good quality information to provide recommendations on type, dose, and duration for probiotics. What we can say for sure is that fibre consumption is associated with beneficial effects in several context. Should this be the message to reinforce? - Page 9: the transition from fiber to probiotic food is quite abrupt, maybe subsections may help the reader to follow the flow. As to my understanding the meta-analyses include probiotics with different matrices, I am not sure how important the concept of probiotic food is here. - BOX2, prebiotics better referred to as MAC. Although there has been quite a debate in the field on what is a prebiotic and what is not, none of the proposed definitions restraint prebiotics to carbohydrates. I think MAC and prebiotics are overlapping not identical concepts. - The title of the first section Role of the gut microbiome in nutrition and obesity does not reflect the content of the paragraph. This section is all about metabolic products of the gut microbiota. - Page 3: most studies of humans show a dysbiosis characterized by a lower diversity in overweight and obese subjects. It might be good to provide one of two references. - Stating that IPA exerts neuroprotective effect in Alzheimer disease and cerebral ischemia based on ref 23 (page 3) is a bit of shortcut. Ref 23 presents in vitro data on the scavenging properties of IPA. - Page 4: ref 26 on DSS might not be the most appropriate one to refer to the mechanisms by wich gut microbiota dysbiosis promotes WD-induced obesity.
- Page 6: ref 48 does not describe MAC as stated in lines ~43-47. - Page 11: the subsentence with ever larger populations acquiring microbiome data is not clear to me. I found out of few typos: - TMA is trimethylamine, not trimethylamine N-oxide (page 3) - Alzheimer disease instead of Alzheimers (page 3) - Last sentence on page 3 would benefit from rephrasing. - Several points are missing, - Page 5, Verrucomicrobia phylum - Page 5, on the presence of gut microbes - Key messages : the gut microbiome composition and its manipulation influence - Key messages : the medical community needs - Table 1, point 2: the microbes in our gut influence human energy metabolism I sincerely hope you will find my comments helpful, Do not hesitate to contact me if needed, Best wishes, Laure Bindels Additional Questions: Please enter your name: Laure Bindels Job Title: Assistant Professor Institution: Université catholique de Louvain Reimbursement for attending a symposium?: No A fee for speaking?: No A fee for organising education?: No Funds for research?: No Funds for a member of staff?: No Fees for consulting?: No Have you in the past five years been employed by an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper?: No Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper?: No If you have any competing interests <A HREF='http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-c ompeting-interests'target='_new'> (please see BMJ policy) </a>please declare them here: I coauthored several papers with one of the coauthors of the current review, Prof Jens Walter. Reviewer: 2 Recommendation:
Comments: The Analysis article titled The role of the gut microbiome in nutrition and health discusses the highly relevant and interesting role that diet plays on the microbiota composition and function and how they impact human health. This topic is of interest to both specialists and the general scientific community. The article synthesizes much of the recent literature of both animal and human dietary studies that have demonstrated links between diet, food additives, medication, and supplements and the microbiota with a number of diseases including obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, etc. The authors do a nice job delineating the complexity and challenges of dietary intervention studies in humans, as well as provide a synopsis of many of the most relevant studies done to date. They also point to encouraging preliminary work that lays the foundation for future study of human subjects. The authors also summarized trials of probiotic supplementation to produce a couple helpful tables of demonstrated benefits and outstanding questions related to probiotics as well as a summary the key results for the studies. One notable study that was not discussed in the article is the 2016 Wu et al study comparing the microbiota and metabolome of vegans and omnivores. This study would fit well in the section discussing popular diets and nicely demonstrates how the lack of reproducible microbiota differences between individuals on different diets may mask differences that can be seen in the metabolites produced by the microbiota. In Figure 1 there are various dietary inputs used to contrast health and disease outcomes. TMAO production is one of the deleterious outcomes yet excessive protein consumption is not listed as an input. This figure is also somewhat misleading in that it appears that all deleterious outcomes are a result of TMAO production. Authors should consider adding other microbiome outputs to this figure (ie reduced SCFA production, other microbiota produced metabolites as described in studies by the Fischbach group) One minor point is the use of microbiota vs microbiome. The authors nicely define microbiome as the collective genome of microorganisms, however in the manuscript the authors will use microbiome when referring to the collection of organisms, not their genomes (for example lines 3-7 on page 4; Box 1 that defines microbiome diversity as the measure of how many species ; microbiome vs microbiota accessible carbohydrates in manuscript vs Box 2). The field is already mired in the confusing use these terms, this might be a good place to try to delineate some clearer definitions. Additional Questions: Please enter your name: Erica Sonnenburg Job Title: Senior Research Scientist Institution: Stanford University Reimbursement for attending a symposium?: No A fee for speaking?: No A fee for organising education?: No Funds for research?: No Funds for a member of staff?: No Fees for consulting?: No Have you in the past five years been employed by an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper?: No
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper?: No If you have any competing interests <A HREF='http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-c ompeting-interests'target='_new'> (please see BMJ policy) </a>please declare them here: Date Sent: 19-Mar-2018